Will Flames make the playoffs?

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

I don’t particularly understand the ‘your unsupported view’ thing you are saying

But yes. In short, the models do a fine job, within their own limitations.

There are certain things about the goalie’s game that have been indisputably bad and cost the team. Like that muffin from the blue line early in the season

But also yes, the attention to detail on the defensive side, dropped assignments, have led to unnecessary grade A chances.

I don’t feel the need to assign blame to solely goalie or solely team. They both can contribute

The proper way to go about it would be to do like Valiquette did. Manually review every goal scored and evaluate the contributing causes in terms of the overall play

It’s disingenuous to call a view ‘unsupported’ when you are making the case that what matters most are things that are not currently measured

To suggest it's not the goaltenders it's the team defense without doing the study that you point to with Valiquette is unsupported.

(not saying you're saying it's 100% the team)

That's not disingenuous at all.

Calgary has decent chance suppression when compared to other teams. They also have very middling goaltenders. Models from at least two sources support both of those claims.

[peter12]

I'm kind of more on the "maybe" side these days.

[Teroy]

Regardless of the stats; the defense and Markstrom's goaltending have been painfully inadequate. Couple that with the inability to convert a volume of shots on goal into goals and you have a team that is at best, average. If they make the playoffs, they'll just last long enough to make the owners a few more bucks.

[DeluxeMoustache]

This does not create cognitive dissonance for me

Structurally, Sutter has the team doing good things, that are reflected favourably in the models

I’ve watched all the games and all the goals, just haven’t catalogued them. Nor do I plan to

What Valiquette did included differentiating between shots based on how long the goalie had to get set after the puck crossed the RR, right? That made a material difference.

No model you point to considers that.

You could have not just 2, but 30 models that agree. As long as they are based on what’s easy to measure, what’s available, but miss the context that matters because it’s too hard to measure, for practical purposes, then they will have limitations.

Not sure why that is an issue.

I look at a model, consider what it does, and what it can’t do. That informs my view of the conclusion

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Teroy

Regardless of the stats; the defense and Markstrom's goaltending have been painfully inadequate. Couple that with the inability to convert a volume of shots on goal into goals and you have a team that is at best, average. If they make the playoffs, they'll just last long enough to make the owners a few more bucks.

Yeah they have a serious finishing issue for sure.

Not sure what to do with someone that starts a sentence with "regardless of stats" and then goes on to form their own conclusions.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

This does not create cognitive dissonance for me

Structurally, Sutter has the team doing good things, that are reflected favourably in the models

I’ve watched all the games and all the goals, just haven’t catalogued them. Nor do I plan to

What Valiquette did included differentiating between shots based on how long the goalie had to get set after the puck crossed the RR, right? That made a material difference.

No model you point to considers that.

You could have not just 2, but 30 models that agree. As long as they are based on what’s easy to measure, what’s available, but miss the context that matters because it’s too hard to measure, for practical purposes, then they will have limitations.

Not sure why that is an issue.

I look at a model, consider what it does, and what it can’t do. That informs my view of the conclusion

I'm just reporting the models results.

You just have a gut feel that it's wrong, and honestly of course it is! Any model of this nature is always wrong to some degree.

But is it wrong with a bias? Does it unfairly treat Calgary goaltenders and benefits Calgary team defense?

That's the stretch I can't agree with (if you're making that assertion)

If you're not making that assertion, then on average based on the collection of data Calgary is in the top 5-6 in what they give up, but their goaltenders are mid to just below average.

[OutOfTheCube]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

Are you telling me the Oilers defence is pretty good?

Originally Posted by Bingo

No I wouldn't go that far.

They seem to collapse in their own zone and take away the high end chance frequency, but their shot attempts against, shots against, and expected goals against are all middle of the pack.

Think the Stars series in the bubble for Calgary where Ward had them give up the zone and the wall, but protect the slot.

Inevitably ends up in the back of the net when you get tired chasing.

Advanced stats say Calgary have good defense = they have good defense.

Same advanced stats say Edmonton have good defense = hold up.

Lol.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by OutOfTheCube

Advanced stats say Calgary have good defense = they have good defense.

Same advanced stats say Edmonton have good defense = hold up.

Lol.

Not sure why you're laughing.

Didn't say that at all.

Was very specific on the different stats and how they differ.

In a hurry for a laugh not reading correctly?

[Teroy]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Yeah they have a serious finishing issue for sure.

Not sure what to do with someone that starts a sentence with "regardless of stats" and then goes on to form their own conclusions.

I keep forgetting that you know everything.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Teroy

I keep forgetting that you know everything.

Now that's funny.

I can just look something up without spewing what I think despite being shown data that says the opposite.

[OutOfTheCube]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Not sure why you're laughing.

Didn't say that at all.

Was very specific on the different stats and how they differ.

In a hurry for a laugh not reading correctly?

That's almost exactly what you said.

"See, these stats show Calgary is good."

"Those stats also show Edmonton is good."

"Well hold on, those stats don't tell the whole story..."

That's kind of the advanced stats crew in a nutshell anyways, but still.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by OutOfTheCube

That's almost exactly what you said.

"See, these stats show Calgary is good."

"Those stats also show Edmonton is good."

"Well hold on, those stats don't tell the whole story..."

That's kind of the advanced stats crew in a nutshell anyways, but still.

Nope.

Edmonton is pretty good at high danger shot prevention. Someone asked if that means Edmonton is good at defense.

I said no ... when you dig into other stats they give up a lot of shot volume and don't have a great xGA60 compared to the Flames.

Never denied or summarized the stats I presented differently at all.

[Kipper_3434]

All I know is my gut tells me "maybe?"

[Macho0978]

When you look at the breakdown of GA's by type for each team you can make a case the Flames goalies haven't been good this year.

GA at 5 on 5:

99 Total
88 SCGA
53 HDGA

So that works out too:

11 - GA that weren't a scoring chance
35 - Low or Medium scoring chance GA
53 - High Danger goals against

Only Seattle, Toronto and Nashville have given up less GA on non-scoring chances. I would think most of these would be bad goals.

23 teams have given up less goals that 35 on low and medium danger scoring chances. Flames are one of the worst in the league here. Medium danger save percent is bottom 5.

High Danger save percent is also bottom 10 in the league as well.

Too many goals this year on medium danger scoring chances against. Ones that you can say, can't blame him but it would be nice to get a save here once in a while.

I'd love to see the NHL break high danger chances into a few buckets. Not sure how they would do it, but goalies being set vs moving to make the save or contested chances for open chances. Not sure but it would be the next level for advanced stats.

How do people who say the Flames give up more terrible chances even though the stats say they don't vs what other teams do? Do you watch every single game or just the Flames. Our team does not create a ton of high danger chances so is it not possible that when teams play us, we think our d stinks vs other teams d but it could be our forwards making the d look good?

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by Macho0978

When you look at the breakdown of GA's by type for each team you can make a case the Flames goalies haven't been good this year.

GA at 5 on 5:

99 Total
88 SCGA
53 HDGA

So that works out too:

11 - GA that weren't a scoring chance
35 - Low or Medium scoring chance GA
53 - High Danger goals against

Only Seattle, Toronto and Nashville have given up less GA on non-scoring chances. I would think most of these would be bad goals.

23 teams have given up less goals that 35 on low and medium danger scoring chances. Flames are one of the worst in the league here. Medium danger save percent is bottom 5.

High Danger save percent is also bottom 10 in the league as well.

Too many goals this year on medium danger scoring chances against. Ones that you can say, can't blame him but it would be nice to get a save here once in a while.

I'd love to see the NHL break high danger chances into a few buckets. Not sure how they would do it, but goalies being set vs moving to make the save or contested chances for open chances. Not sure but it would be the next level for advanced stats.

How do people who say the Flames give up more terrible chances even though the stats say they don't vs what other teams do? Do you watch every single game or just the Flames. Our team does not create a ton of high danger chances so is it not possible that when teams play us, we think our d stinks vs other teams d but it could be our forwards making the d look good?

^ stats capture high or medium danger chances (as defined by the particular model). They absolutely do not capture ‘terrible chances’


Stats do not capture anything at all about the team defensive position or contribution.
They do not capture if the goalie is set or not
They do not capture pressure on the shooter and resulting shot placement
Etc.

Those are the kind of things that can make a terrible defensive breakdown become a goal

The Flames can hold a team to a low number of HDCA but sprinkle in a handful of those, and you can easily allow a goal and lose a game

The models are pretty good at comparing overall balance of play

Bingo appears to be assuming that these things are essentially equal for all teams. I personally don’t agree.

The key point is that the stats don’t refute it. They don’t measure it. It’s a limitation.

Remember the Chicago game? Just off the top of my head, the third and 4th goals

The goal where both Weegar and Zadorov covered Patrick Kane, who dished to Dickinson to go in all alone, in the slot?
The odd man rush where Hanifin inexplicably challenges the puck carrier at center ice, gets blown by, Huberdeau is the guy back and Coleman dove, Lafferty easily taps in a cross crease pass?

This team has made brutal costly mistakes all year on the defensive side of the puck

The advanced stats I am interested in have to do with zone entries, chances from rush vs cycle, odd man rushes, etc.

These danger models are an attempt to improve on raw save percentage, to group probabilities of goals by separating in to rough buckets. Good.

But they don’t really actually tell you if a goalie has been particularly good or bad. And absolutely do not capture terrible chances

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

^ stats capture high or medium danger chances (as defined by the particular model). They absolutely do not capture ‘terrible chances’


Stats do not capture anything at all about the team defensive position or contribution.
They do not capture if the goalie is set or not
They do not capture pressure on the shooter and resulting shot placement
Etc.

Those are the kind of things that can make a terrible defensive breakdown become a goal

The Flames can hold a team to a low number of HDCA but sprinkle in a handful of those, and you can easily allow a goal and lose a game

The models are pretty good at comparing overall balance of play

Bingo appears to be assuming that these things are essentially equal for all teams. I personally don’t agree.

The key point is that the stats don’t refute it. They don’t measure it. It’s a limitation.

Remember the Chicago game? Just off the top of my head, the third and 4th goals

The goal where both Weegar and Zadorov covered Patrick Kane, who dished to Dickinson to go in all alone, in the slot?
The odd man rush where Hanifin inexplicably challenges the puck carrier at center ice, gets blown by, Huberdeau is the guy back and Coleman dove, Lafferty easily taps in a cross crease pass?

This team has made brutal costly mistakes all year on the defensive side of the puck

The advanced stats I am interested in have to do with zone entries, chances from rush vs cycle, odd man rushes, etc.

These danger models are an attempt to improve on raw save percentage, to group probabilities of goals by separating in to rough buckets. Good.

But they don’t really actually tell you if a goalie has been particularly good or bad. And absolutely do not capture terrible chances

I mean it was the game before last and the worst game of the season defensively not to mention they were missing their top defensive dman..."just off the top of your head"

Not really an example for how the season has gone as a whole...Flames have had far more losses where they have badly out chanced the other team but their goalie was substantially better.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by dino7c

I mean it was the game before last and the worst game of the season defensively and they were missing their top defensive dman..."just off the top of your head"

Not really an example for how the season has gone as a whole...Flames have had far more losses where they have badly out chanced the other team but their goalie was substantially better.

Ugh. The models agree.

Whoosh.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

^ stats capture high or medium danger chances (as defined by the particular model). They absolutely do not capture ‘terrible chances’


Stats do not capture anything at all about the team defensive position or contribution.
They do not capture if the goalie is set or not
They do not capture pressure on the shooter and resulting shot placement
Etc.

Those are the kind of things that can make a terrible defensive breakdown become a goal

The Flames can hold a team to a low number of HDCA but sprinkle in a handful of those, and you can easily allow a goal and lose a game

The models are pretty good at comparing overall balance of play

Bingo appears to be assuming that these things are essentially equal for all teams. I personally don’t agree.

The key point is that the stats don’t refute it. They don’t measure it. It’s a limitation.

Remember the Chicago game? Just off the top of my head, the third and 4th goals

The goal where both Weegar and Zadorov covered Patrick Kane, who dished to Dickinson to go in all alone, in the slot?
The odd man rush where Hanifin inexplicably challenges the puck carrier at center ice, gets blown by, Huberdeau is the guy back and Coleman dove, Lafferty easily taps in a cross crease pass?

This team has made brutal costly mistakes all year on the defensive side of the puck

The advanced stats I am interested in have to do with zone entries, chances from rush vs cycle, odd man rushes, etc.

These danger models are an attempt to improve on raw save percentage, to group probabilities of goals by separating in to rough buckets. Good.

But they don’t really actually tell you if a goalie has been particularly good or bad. And absolutely do not capture terrible chances

No Bingo thinks it's highly unlikely any particular team busts terribly far outside the averages for these models.

Listing turnovers for huge scoring chances by the Flames means nothing if you haven't looked at all 32 teams with the same lense and without a bias.

That's all I'm saying.

You have a goalie bias, you have for years, so yeah you seem to want to refute the Flames defense metrics in support of the Calgary goaltenders.

There really isn't any factual stats to back that up.

I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm saying it's unlikely you're right.

[Macho0978]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

^ stats capture high or medium danger chances (as defined by the particular model). They absolutely do not capture ‘terrible chances’


Stats do not capture anything at all about the team defensive position or contribution.
They do not capture if the goalie is set or not
They do not capture pressure on the shooter and resulting shot placement
Etc.

Those are the kind of things that can make a terrible defensive breakdown become a goal

The Flames can hold a team to a low number of HDCA but sprinkle in a handful of those, and you can easily allow a goal and lose a game

The models are pretty good at comparing overall balance of play

Bingo appears to be assuming that these things are essentially equal for all teams. I personally don’t agree.

The key point is that the stats don’t refute it. They don’t measure it. It’s a limitation.

Remember the Chicago game? Just off the top of my head, the third and 4th goals

The goal where both Weegar and Zadorov covered Patrick Kane, who dished to Dickinson to go in all alone, in the slot?
The odd man rush where Hanifin inexplicably challenges the puck carrier at center ice, gets blown by, Huberdeau is the guy back and Coleman dove, Lafferty easily taps in a cross crease pass?

This team has made brutal costly mistakes all year on the defensive side of the puck

The advanced stats I am interested in have to do with zone entries, chances from rush vs cycle, odd man rushes, etc.

These danger models are an attempt to improve on raw save percentage, to group probabilities of goals by separating in to rough buckets. Good.

But they don’t really actually tell you if a goalie has been particularly good or bad. And absolutely do not capture terrible chances

How can you say what other teams do againts all other teams though? Unless you watch every single game.

Flames SH% by type:

Overall - 7.83% - 24th overall
High Danger - 17.37% - 7th overall
Medium Danger - 9.02% - 20th overall
Low Danger - 2.81% - 22nd overall

How can the Flames rank by each type be better than their overall rank? Easy, they lead the league in low danger chances and shots. Chances by a mile.

I've been saying since the summer, this team needs someone with speed that can skate blue line to blue line and then make something happen once they gain the blueline. This team needs to grind for every chance they get.

So, if this team needs to grind for every chance, is it not possible we make the other teams d and goalies look good?

Sorry but we use stats because we don't work in the industry and simply can't watch every game every night. Can't evaluate every teams d vs ours just by watching 1 team 82 times and every other team 2-5 times.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Macho0978

How can you say what other teams do againts all other teams though? Unless you watch every single game.

Flames SH% by type:

Overall - 7.83% - 24th overall
High Danger - 17.37% - 7th overall
Medium Danger - 9.02% - 20th overall
Low Danger - 2.81% - 22nd overall

How can the Flames rank by each type be better than their overall rank? Easy, they lead the league in low danger chances and shots. Chances by a mile.

I've been saying since the summer, this team needs someone with speed that can skate blue line to blue line and then make something happen once they gain the blueline. This team needs to grind for every chance they get.

So, if this team needs to grind for every chance, is it not possible we make the other teams d and goalies look good?

Sorry but we use stats because we don't work in the industry and simply can't watch every game every night. Can't evaluate every teams d vs ours just by watching 1 team 82 times and every other team 2-5 times.

So has anyone correlated being good at generating low and medium danger chances to winning hockey games?